Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Pure]

PS., I wouldn't go overboard on this repentance thing. You're human. You did what 'comes natural' to many. For some it's a lifelong career, which contrary to what some think, was not the suggestion of this thread (though it was convenient to focus on Valmont).


Isn't it in all of us? Another thing, don't you, despite having risen to a higher moral plane, sometimes find that some form of self-absorbed or self-gratifying activity (or at least the urge) just peeks out. Puts in a brief appearance on your way to volunteer at the soup kitchen?

Would you tell your daughter 'Never do this, it's evil, and you'll end up in blazes." "Or, keep it within limits. Sometimes life is a battle and you do what you need to against the perceived 'enemy." or.???

 

[sunfox]

PS., I wouldn't go overboard on this repentance thing. You're human. You did what 'comes natural' to many. For some it's a lifelong career, which contrary to what some think, was not the suggestion of this thread (though it was convenient to focus on Valmont).


Isn't it in all of us? Another thing, don't you, despite having risen to a higher moral plane, sometimes find that some form of self-absorbed or self-gratifying activity (or at least the urge) just peeks out. Puts in a brief appearance on your way to volunteer at the soup kitchen?

Would you tell your daughter 'Never do this, it's evil, and you'll end up in blazes." "Or, keep it within limits. Sometimes life is a battle and you do what you need to against the perceived 'enemy." or.???

I wouldn't say there's any worry of me going overboard with repentance, or even going onboard with it.

I do feel badly about what I did, but it's in the past, and I was a teenager. I made bad decisions, as a lot of people do when they're young. I still make mistakes now, lots of em. Just not that particular one.

I do still sometimes feel an urge to do something just to hurt someone emotionally, but I don't do it. I revel in the mean feeling for a minute, then I let it go.

As for the Munchkin Queen, well.. this could be mommy love, but I suspect very strongly that she'll destroy a few hearts on her way to adulthood as well. If need be, we'll talk about it... but it may never be a problem for her. Not everyone gets a thrill out of breaking hearts on purpose.

 

[Pure]

Again, we're veering into the active cruelty category. It's sufficient for a libertine to be indifferent to the feelings of his or her conquest. The actively sadistic, or 'career breaker of souls', as in the case of Valmont, is in the 'extreme', but legal niche.

I don't thi[nk] this simple 'self absorption', on a non-career basis, needs to be moralized about.

Another feature that arises, say, in the life of Sade, is a division of the world into two categories: a preferred circle of friends who are not exploited; outside, the field of legitimate 'prey' (who aren't, however, victimized in a criminal manner).

 

[Pure]

a hot lil one, perhaps apposite, here, if anyone's reading this thread.

the confession, by MrRogersNeighbor

http://literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=46947

 

[Marquis]

I can tell you that I take a somewhat sadistic pleasure in getting girls to do things they normally would not do or would not want to do. I like to push girls to do things, like swallow my cum when they usually spit or something like that, and I sometimes take great pleasure in the feeling of having conquered their will.

Evil, evil shit, I know. But I guess the internet is like cheap therapy, so you guys get to hear the truth.

 

[Pure]

so how is the therapy working?

(as you know, all 'my' threads are devoted to psychic integration)

 

[Marquis]

Well enough.

As of recent my real life persona started to become as bizzarre as my online persona and it became obvious that more aggressive therapy was necessary.

So now this is more like an adjunct to actual therapy, but it'll still be nice to get horrid things off my chest.

 

[Pure]

so, to what extent do the principles and descriptions early in this thread apply to your brand of libertine sadism (or is it sadistic libertinism?). where do you differ, if you do.

 

[Pure]

The point of self absorbed sex is to make the other a fuckdoll.

when all is said and done, Biderman coercion methods, sweet music, the 'other' is to be a fucktoy.

the other has a motive, too, is s/he sticks around: through self eff[a]cement, to become a fucktoy

basically there are only two roads, the one above, and the new agey partnership: "I develop my soul and you develop yours through the kinky stuff we've agreed on, and itemized in Appendix A, of the Cosmic Contract of Souls for Karmic Enhancement.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

The point of self absorbed sex is to make the other a fuckdoll.

when all is said and done, Biderman coercion methods, sweet music, the 'other' is to be a fucktoy.

the other has a motive, too, is s/he sticks around: through self effcement, to become a fucktoy

basically there are only two roads, the one above, and the new agey partnership: "I develop my soul and you develop yours through the kinky stuff we've agreed on, and itemized in Appendix A, of the Cosmic Contract of Souls for Karmic Enhancement.

Pure, this reminds me of a joke -- there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are 2 kinds of people in the world, and those who don't.

That said, your two roads don't allow for such things as the vast difference between those who Choose to stick around and those who are just stuck in the Biderman situation. This matters to Both parties.

And I don't even believe those two roads as given,, are as straightforward as all that. One may not care about the development of the other and self but could get there anyway, and the other may be all that is Karmically and Cosmicly Correct in theory and in name, yet in practice turn out to be some mixture of the two.

In any case, there are lots of other ways to slice these relationships, I believe.

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Here's a question

I have backslid just a bit in that most of my sexual escapades (when i have had them recently) seem to be kinda like this:

Me: Do you want to come over?
Them: Why, what's up?
Me: I wanna fuck, do you want to or not. Let me know, I haven't got all day.
Them: Give me (a length of time) I will be there.
Me: Come now or I will find someone else.
Them: OK.

My question is: Does that qualify as self absorbed or just mean-spirited..not wanting to be bothered...

later all
Luna

 

[Pure]

i'd say self absorbed, but not exactly polished, because your own wishes/ needs are paramount, even as to timing. but then again, an attractive woman, esp. young doesn't need lots of polish to conduct sexual exploits (exploitations, perhaps).

one issue you don't deal with is the intended result. i.e., do you intend, for your amusement to leave them with a bit of mindfuck?

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

i'd say self absorbed, but not exactly polished, because your own wishes/ needs are paramount, even as to timing. but then again, an attractive woman, esp. young doesn't need lots of polish to conduct sexual exploits (exploitations, perhaps).

one issue you don't deal with is the intended result. i.e., do you intend, for your amusement to leave them with a bit of mindfuck?

Hey Pure (Tis ex apet4you)

It's not about mindfuckery. I don't intend to harm them, they KNOW what I want and it is completely up to them whether or not they do it. I guess I just feel sort of like I have just fallen back on old tactics since I am no longer involved in any sort of relationship (BDSM, nilla or otherwise).

I know it makes me Self-Absorbed in the extreme but the rest..I don't even get that charge anymore...(well mayhap a minor one..cuz when I call they come right away, usually)...

later
Luna

 

[Pure]

Hi Apet, Luna, welcome back,

Luna: they KNOW what I want and it is completely up to them whether or not they do it.

you are too modest. the male stiff prick in your presence is going to lead them where it may....and where you will it to....probably into your lair.....

i don't link mindfuckery and 'harm', more in intentionly creating a dog who'll come back barking at the back door, when there are no more handouts.



----
Hey Pure (Tis ex apet4you)

It's not about mindfuckery. I don't intend to harm them, they KNOW what I want and it is completely up to them whether or not they do it. I guess I just feel sort of like I have just fallen back on old tactics since I am no longer involved in any sort of relationship (BDSM, nilla or otherwise).

I know it makes me Self-Absorbed in the extreme but the rest..I don't even get that charge anymore...(well mayhap a minor one..cuz when I call they come right away, usually)...

later
Luna

 

[Pure]

yak! try a little tenderness... elsewhere!

i'm bumping this because the 'yak' factor is getting pretty high in that 'fake dom' thread. 'sensitive souled' bdsm--yak!

the 'true dom' tenderly looks after his or her sub's feelings--yak!

 

[Pure]

The point of self absorbed sex is to make the other a fuckdoll.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i'm bumping this because the 'yak' factor is getting pretty high in that 'fake dom' thread. 'sensitive souled' bdsm--yak!

the 'true dom' tenderly looks after his or her sub's feelings--yak!

Yep, I know one who has not said anything but OK since his sub told him she intended to sleep with anyone she wanted because she wanted to and that he would have to accept it if he wanted to keep her. He doesn't like it, but has decided to pretend even to himself these days it seems, that it is OK as long as she doesn't walk permanently..of course, that is also a possibility in her mind.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

one point of this thread was to have a forum where the truth about oneself might be spoken. my view is that the vast majority of people are 'out for themselves' --self-absorbed--the majority of the time, including in sex.

ideally screennames provide a cover for candor, but some people still do not feel free. sunfox, above, is an exception.

the biggest other thing is that, in the effort to make the 'bdsm community' seem respectable, people only talk about their 'ethical' impulses, the dom's consideration for the sub's feeling etc. love is easy to 'admit,' but hardly anyone will admit to acting in anger.

sunfox and luna, above, are some of the few exceptions to the above generalities.

 

[Shankara20]

The point of self absorbed sex is to make the other a fuckdoll.

When I was discovering my "gayness" I needed a cock, it rather pissed me off that I needed to contend with the guy attached to what I was after in order to get it. I could now go into a long statement about concern about the guy bla bla bla - but as I read this thread I am free to say that "I just wanted his cock and was willing to give it back to him once I was finished". I remember the moment it hit me, I was on my knees sucking that cock and the guy put his hands on my head and stated to move me the way he wanted - in my mind I yelled "I'm in charge here! This cock is mine till I'm done with it". I reached up, pushed his hands away and finished it off the way I wanted. Then I got up and walked away - a very happy toppy cocksucker...

Is this what you have in mind here?

 

[FurryFury]

one point of this thread was to have a forum where the truth about oneself might be spoken. my view is that the vast majority of people are 'out for themselves' --self-absorbed--the majority of the time, including in sex.

ideally screennames provide a cover for candor, but some people still do not feel free. sunfox, above, is an exception.

the biggest other thing is that, in the effort to make the 'bdsm community' seem respectable, people only talk about their 'ethical' impulses, the dom's consideration for the sub's feeling etc. love is easy to 'admit,' but hardly anyone will admit to acting in anger.

sunfox and luna, above, are some of the few exceptions to the above generalities.

I find it interesting that although no one is saying that what you feel, think or want is wrong, you feel others are being deceptive and by inference, are wrong. How about they just might be into things differently than you are? There is room for us all isn't there?

Fury

 

[RJMasters]

one point of this thread was to have a forum where the truth about oneself might be spoken. my view is that the vast majority of people are 'out for themselves' --self-absorbed--the majority of the time, including in sex.

ideally screennames provide a cover for candor, but some people still do not feel free. sunfox, above, is an exception.

the biggest other thing is that, in the effort to make the 'bdsm community' seem respectable, people only talk about their 'ethical' impulses, the dom's consideration for the sub's feeling etc. love is easy to 'admit,' but hardly anyone will admit to acting in anger.

sunfox and luna, above, are some of the few exceptions to the above generalities.

First off, my ethical impulses are part of who I am and your view that the vast majority of people are out for themselves is narrow and closed minded with a bit of bitterness and pestimism. Though everyone has some balance in their lives where self interest is present, there is a balance. People fall on the spectrum on both sides of the extreme.

If the real point of this thread is about expressing truth, then you shouldn't have a problem accepting it when people tell you they are not in a constant mode of being self absorbed, including when having sex. But since that doesn't align with your view of the world, you would rather imply that those who aren't self-absorbed aren't really living D/s BDSM. Because your view and definition of D/s BDSM has nothing to do with respectable behavior.

The truth is, this thread is yet another of many in where you would like to bash those who do employ a certain level of ethical behavior. By ethical behavior, I mean simply that they do consider the feelings of their partner in the relationship. Gasp....imagine that! How dreadfully vanilla of them right?

I realise that not all people view BDSM in relationship terms, but there are many who do. D/s BDSM is for them a vital part of a bigger picture, but it is not the whole picture in and of itself. Perhaps in some way you feel you are trying to balance the scales by putting forth a dark, sinister and selfish view of BDSM. What I find unrealistic about your posting though is that you insist that BDSM must be dark, sinister and selfish in order for it to be unvanilla or valid.

Of course there is a part of me that gets off on self absorbed sex. There are times when I want what I want when I want it. I know many in the vanilla world who operate that way. Big deal.

There are more ways to express one's dominance, submission and sexual activities than from a depravity perspective. If you want to pusue dialog and deliberation on the depravity side of things where BDSM is concern, go for it(yak away), but your contribution might have more value if you didn't spend half of it trying to denounce the not so depraved ways in which people express their dominance, submission or sexual activities.

 

[Pure]

note to rj,

rj, you seems to have gotten your knickers and your reading a bit twisted:

rj ...If the real point of this thread is about expressing truth, then you shouldn't have a problem accepting it when people tell you they are not in a constant mode of being self absorbed, including when having sex. [the above, and what follows are excerpts from rj, representing his main points]

P: i don't have a problem with people who say they're ethical and altruistic, but if they go on about it, i start to check my wallet.

rj But since that doesn't align with your view of the world, you would rather imply that those who aren't self-absorbed aren't really living D/s BDSM. Because your view and definition of D/s BDSM has nothing to do with respectable behavior.

P: this thread is about libertinism, 'self absorbed sex'; there is a relation to SM, surely--in the sadism area-- i think it's hard to conceive of a person who is gentle and self sacrificing in the same sphere[e.g. the bedroom] in which he is sadistic. but that wasn't a point i even mentioned, here. [the para slightly reworded]

rj The truth is, this thread is yet another of many in where you would like to bash those who do employ a certain level of ethical behavior.

P: There are a great many threads where self-said ethical people such as yourself hold forth and socialize, unmolested. The fact is you are here, doing the bashing.

...Perhaps in some way you feel you are trying to balance the scales by putting forth a dark, sinister and selfish view of BDSM.

your one true sentence. yes, balance is needed. that's also why the topopolis thread was started.

What I find unrealistic about your posting though is that you insist that BDSM must be dark, sinister and selfish in order for it to be unvanilla or valid.[...]

the possible 'dark' side of SM is the topic of another thread. this thread is about self absorption. selfish and 'dark' are not the same.

there are various ways of having sex or relationships which, if they don't flout the criminal code, may be 'valid'--i.e., 'work' for the people, and i've never said the contrary. i do say if they're giving each other chocolate strawberries and reading Keats, it may not be an SM relationship, in that no sadistic or masochistic behavior is apparent. it may be highly deviant , however, depending on which orifice the strawberries are inserted.

...There are more ways to express one's dominance, submission and sexual activities than from a depravity perspective.

not the topic of this thread; but the depraved ways are the most fun!

If you want to pusue dialog and deliberation on the depravity side of things where BDSM is concern[ed], go for it (yak away), ....

i will--and i won't just yak; thanks.

j.

 

[Pure]

shankara,

thanks for your honest account. yes it's the sort of thing i had in mind in that your gratification, your way, became paramount.




Shankara When I was discovering my "gayness" I needed a cock, it rather pissed me off that I needed to contend with the guy attached to what I was after in order to get it. I could now go into a long statement about concern about the guy bla bla bla - but as I read this thread I am free to say that "I just wanted his cock and was willing to give it back to him once I was finished". I remember the moment it hit me, I was on my knees sucking that cock and the guy put his hands on my head and stated to move me the way he wanted - in my mind I yelled "I'm in charge here! This cock is mine till I'm done with it". I reached up, pushed his hands away and finished it off the way I wanted. Then I got up and walked away - a very happy toppy cocksucker...

Is this what you have in mind here?

 

[alice_underneath]

one point of this thread was to have a forum where the truth about oneself might be spoken. my view is that the vast majority of people are 'out for themselves' --self-absorbed--the majority of the time, including in sex.

OK. Here is my honest and ethics-free contribution to your discussion of sex and selfishness.

I believe that selfishness is an inherent part of human nature. All healthy adults maintain a constant vigilence over their own self interest - including the time when they are participating in sexual encounters.

Sex, for me, is part of a package deal - and I want one heck of a lot from it.

In addition to physical pleasure, I want love, affection, companionship, laughter, and conversation over dinner. The comfort and joy I receive from spending time with a man whom I trust and look up to. The opportunity to please a man (physically and otherwise), and bask in the warm glow of appreciation in the wake of the pleasing. Care when I am sick and comfort when I am sad. Assistance in raising my children. Fidelity. (Yes, that's right. I am so damn selfish that I expect him to honor the 'forsaking all others' part of our marital vows.)

You might say - no, I was talking about the sex act alone. My response would be - I don't know how to separate sex from a relationship. This has nothing to do with ethics. Whether I was born this way, or conditioned, or the product of random life events doesn't really matter. This is just who I am.

Do I have fantasies of doing things that my husband would not appreciate or tolerate? Of course. The imagination is a wonderful thing. What holds me back from acting on some of these impulses? Is it ethics? Nope. It is self-preservation.

Look at the guy who says he refrains from acts of nonconsensual sadism because he doesn't want to spend his life looking over his shoulder, or in jail. That's not an ethical basis for restraint, and my reasons are no more noble than that.

Self-preservation, for me, has two parts in this context. First, continuation of the union (the 'package deal'), which I value very highly. Second, the ability to look at my reflection in the mirror and feel comfortable with what I see.

Now, in case you are tempted to say that the 2nd part has an ethical base, let me explain. Our relationship is built on love and trust. And if real love and trust aren't possible in this world, then I don't want to live here anymore. It's just too freakin' scary.

I have to believe love and trust are possible, and the way I prove that these things exist is by my own example - by loving and being trustworthy. This comforts me and makes me feel safe. It keeps me sane.

And the real point is - I do this for me. No ethics involved here - just selfishness, once again.

I don't see myself as more ethical, or less selfish, than the guy who just wants to use a 'fuckdoll' for his own pleasure. We just have different wants and needs.

Alice

 

[Hester]

When I was discovering my "gayness" I needed a cock, it rather pissed me off that I needed to contend with the guy attached to what I was after in order to get it. I could now go into a long statement about concern about the guy bla bla bla - but as I read this thread I am free to say that "I just wanted his cock and was willing to give it back to him once I was finished". I remember the moment it hit me, I was on my knees sucking that cock and the guy put his hands on my head and stated to move me the way he wanted - in my mind I yelled "I'm in charge here! This cock is mine till I'm done with it". I reached up, pushed his hands away and finished it off the way I wanted. Then I got up and walked away - a very happy toppy cocksucker...

ha! i've done that before.

i've never made any bones about the fact that i fuck/engage in sexual acts for my own pleasure. the dynamics change quite a bit if we're talking about an emotionally intimate relationship, but in a purely/mostly sexual situation i'm there for my own gratification, even if that means i'm bottoming.

eta: as much as it can seem the bottom is the one objectified, i firmly believe it's possible for the top to be objectified. or for the objectification to be mutual. i was horrified when i first realized this possibility and had to admit to myself that i objectified men i fucked.